Category talk:Non-Canon
Before describing and categorizing this category to the structure we going to have to discuss what pages will get this, becuase that boiler plate (currently in ) is going to join the "Wikia® is a registered service mark of Wikia, Inc. All rights reserved." in the footer ASAP so that it show up everywhere --Roguebfl(talk) 06:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) :ooohhhhh.... That makes sense. I'll keep the discussion on Forum:Central Copyright Discussion page then. --Modred. (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ::Wait, that suggestion didn't make any sense, this discussion isn't actually related to the copyright issue. Right. ::Anyway, sorry about that, I didn't understand what that footer was for before, I'll edit the template to say that the work is homebrew and non-canon. Uh. My understanding is that the pages that will get the non-canon template and category are the ones that are created by us people, to distinguish them from the works created by and/or endorsed as official game supplements by SJG. --Modred. (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ::: Yep, I was just pointing out the boilerplate the you co-oped was something intended for site wide. Now after your changes... Category:Non-Canon is definitely going to be in the Category:Content tree. but should it be directly under Content, or it is it a subcategory of Category:Settings or Category:Characters or both 8) or even a protenual future category of House rules. ::: Another option is to keep is as a template, but have not set a category , and simply use it as a warning. --Roguebfl(talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ::::that's a bit of a conundrum. I guess the category isn't really necessary... Although... Well, actually, it might help people find adventures/campaigns if they want those, although I suppose we should probably have a category for adventures/campaigns... Hmm. Well, I think for now removing the category makes sense. It doesn't seem like it actually gives any information that people would need to sort things by. I'll remove the category. Funny to remove it only to avoid having to figure out where it fits in --Modred. (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :::::I think the category would be useful. See what we have on Shadowrun wiki. --Piotrus 03:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :::::: Well I'm not sure the Shadowrun wiki would be good model for this, they after only have one world, and the category look like "challenged wither it should be here" rather than a distinction warning, especially as the link it to the maintenance category. --Roguebfl(talk) 04:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC) ::::: Btw, I do think this discussion would be better served in some forum; what about Forum:Content Discussion? I am a bit insistent on centralizing the discussions since in my experience a lot of questions get unanswered as people may come a few days later to a wiki, and will not see some discussions on obscure category pages in recent changes. My solution is to make a note of a centralized discussion on such pages, and channel them all to the central place. --Piotrus 03:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :::::: I disagree with centralization this part. We already agreed that non canon stuff is useful for this wiki, So this conversation has no scope beyond where to put this which mean it scope would be beyond this talk page. Now Forum:Content Discussion would be a good place to discuss What category are a new member needs to aware of so that we makes a content version of GURPS Wiki:Templates. Basically you on centralize things that have "global concern" If we were discussing so that we have a consistence look and feel for table that we would want to centralize as it would effect every page that has tables. But if we only talking about how to organized Quantums do do want to have search though an ever growing central discussion area rather than the Infinite Worlds talk page, hence being only 1 click away from where it matters. Basically to further this discussion on what should and should not be centralized should be centralized 8) A lot of our early discussions are going to need to be centralized, but as thing get hashed out, less and less will need to be. --Roguebfl(talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)